UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
MARTIN W. MONTEER, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner's challenge concerned the manner of sentence execution, not the sentence itself, and the custodian was not within the court's territorial jurisdiction.
Martin W. Monteer, convicted of bank robbery, filed a motion challenging the good time credit applied to his sentence. The district court treated this…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Time Credits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Martin W. Monteer appeals from the dismissal of his postconviction petition for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
In 1975, Monteer was convicted of bank robbery in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri and sentenced to sixteen years imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Monteer, 512 F. 2d 1047 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 855,96 S.Ct. 103, 46 L.Ed.2d 80 (1975). In October 1976, while confined at the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, Monteer filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 with the sentencing court, alleging that the prison officials were failing to credit him with the ten days per month good time to which he was entitled under 18 U.S.C. § 4161. The district court treated the petition as one for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction on grounds that neither petitioner nor his custodian was within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. This appeal followed.
Monteer’s challenge is to the manner of execution of his sentence rather than the sentence itself. Accordingly, his claim is not cognizable under § 2255. See, e.g., Gra vink v. United States, 549 F. 2d 1152, 1153 (8th Cir. 1977); Lee v. United States, 501 F. 2d 494, 500 (8th Cir. 1974).
Monteer’s claim is cognizable under § 2241; however, we agree that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it as such. Habeas corpus jurisdiction lies only when petitioner’s custodian is within the jurisdiction of the district court. See, e.g. Braden v. Thirtieth Judicial Circuit Ct., 410 U.S. 484, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Gravink v. United States, supra at 1154; Lee v. United States, supra at 501.
The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Voytik v. United States, 778 F.2d 1306 (8th Cir. 1985)
-
United States v. Hutchings, 835 F.2d 185 (8th Cir. 1987)
-
United States v. Janis, 599 F.2d 266 (8th Cir. 1979)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Braden v. 30TH Jud. Cir. Court OF Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (U.S. 1973)
- Friesen v. United States, 423 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1975)
- Vasquez v. United States, 423 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1975)
- LEE v. United States, 501 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1974)
- Gravink v. United States, 549 F.2d 1152 (8th Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Monteer, 512 F.2d 1047 (8th Cir. 1975)